Democrats Seize Control of House; Senate Hangs on Virginia and Montana

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Democrats seized control of the House of Representatives and defeated at least four Republican senators yesterday, riding a wave of voter discontent with President Bush and the war in Iraq.

But the fate of the Senate remained in doubt this morning, as races for Republican-held seats in Montana and Virginia remained too close to call as Election Day turned into the day after. Democrats would need both seats to win control of the Senate as well.

In Montana, Senator Conrad Burns, a Republican, was trailing Jon Tester, a Democrat, by a narrow margin. The race in Virginia — between another Republican incumbent, Senator George Allen, and Jim Webb, his Democratic challenger — was so close that some officials said it would have to be resolved by a recount.

That prospect could mean prolonged uncertainty over control of the Senate, since a recount can be requested only after the results are officially certified on Nov. 27th, according to the state board of elections. Last year a recount in the race for Attorney General was not resolved until Dec. 21.

But the Democrats’ victory in the House — overcoming a legendarily efficient White House political machine — represented a dramatic turnaround in the fortunes of the party and signaled a sea change in the political dynamics in Washington after a dozen years in which Republicans controlled Congress for all but a brief period.

No less significant for the long-term political fortunes of their party, Democrats were winning governors’ seats across the country — notably in Ohio, a state that has been at the center of the past two presidential elections.

By early this morning, Democrats had picked up 24 seats in the House, knocking off Republican incumbents from New Hampshire to Florida, officials in both parties said. Although results from the West Coast had not yet come in, neither party anticipated that the basic outcome would change once all votes were counted.

Among the faces that will be absent from the halls of Congress next year are some high-profile and long-serving members of the Republican Party, including Representatives Charles Bass of New Hampshire. E. Clay Shaw Jr. of Florida, J.D. Hayworth of Arizona, Jim Ryun of Kansas and Nancy L. Johnson of Connecticut.

Karl Rove, the president’s top political strategist, alerted the president that the House was lost at around 11 p.m., the White House said.

"His reaction was, he was disappointed in the results in the House,” Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman. "But he’s eager to work with both parties on his priorities over the next two years. He’s got an agenda of important issues he wants to work on, and he’s going to work with both parties."

Mr. Bush called a press conference for this afternoon at the White House. Mr. Fratto said that Mr. Bush would call the new Democratic Congressional leaders today, including Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, likely to be the next House speaker. Mr. Fratto said the president was still hopeful late last night that the Senate would remain under Republican control.

The parade of departing Republican senators included Mike DeWine of Ohio, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Jim Talent of Missouri, who conceded his race to Claire McCaskill well after midnight.

Democrats celebrated the results in a raucous rally at a victory party in Washington.

“The American people have sent a resounding and unmistakable message of change and a new direction for America,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois Democrat who led his party’s campaign this fall in the House, his voice hoarse from exhaustion.

By any measure, the result was a sobering defeat for a White House and a political party that had just two years ago, with Mr. Bush’s re-election, claimed a mandate to shape both foreign and domestic policy and set out to establish long-term dominance for the Republican Party.

To the end, Mr. Rove had expressed public confidence that the electoral tools he had used to great effect in his long association with Mr. Bush — a sophisticated get-out-the-vote effort, an aggressive effort to define Democratic candidates in unflattering ways, a calculated and intense campaign to fuel the enthusiasm of conservative voters — would save the Republicans from defeat.

In light of the defeat, Mr. Bush’s aides were striking a more conciliatory tone as they faced the prospect of two years of divided government and a clearly enlivened Democratic Party.

“We always recognized this was going to be a very challenging year,” Ken Mehlman, the Republican Party chairman, said on CNN. “We have to continue to work and try to work on a bipartisan basis to accomplish things.”

In the Senate, one of the Republicans’ top targets — Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey — survived a nearly $5 million onslaught by the Republican Party to defeat Thomas H. Kean Jr.

In New York, Eliot Spitzer breezed to victory, becoming the first Democrat in 12 years to move into the governor’s mansion in Albany, and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton won easy re-election. In Connecticut, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, running as in independent, defeated the man who beat him in the Democratic primary, Ned Lamont.

The election to a large extent became a national referendum on Mr. Bush and the war in Iraq, according to exit polls.

Sixty percent of voters leaving the polls yesterday said they opposed the war in Iraq, and 40 percent said their vote was a vote against Mr. Bush. In addition, a significant number of voters said corruption was a crucial issue in their decision, in a year in which Republicans have struggled with scandal in their ranks. Independent voters, a closely watched group in a polarized country, broke heavily for Democrats over Republicans, the exit polls showed.

Ms. Pelosi took note of the importance of the war in the outcome in her own victory speech early this morning.

“Nowhere did the American people make it more clear that we need a new direction than in Iraq,” she said, speaking to cheers. “We can not continue down this catastrophic path. So we say to the president, ‘Mr. President, we need a new direction in Iraq. Let us work together to find a solution to the war in Iraq.’ ”

In a sign of the political mindsets of both parties going into last night, Democrats had arranged an elaborate rally to gather the election results in Washington; Republicans had not.

Beyond the change in party power, the result signaled that the House was in for something of an ideological scramble. While the result was marked by the defeat of a procession of Republican moderates — from New Hampshire, Connecticut and Florida — the new class of Democrats include congressmen-elect who are considerably more moderate than many of their new brethren. In Indiana, Representative John Hostettler, a Republican, was defeated by Brad Ellsworth, a Democrat and sheriff who opposes abortion rights and same-sex marriage.

Democrats picked up six governors’ seats currently held by Republicans, most significantly in Ohio, where Representative Ted Strickland won. Mr. Strickland’s victory, along with the defeat of Mr. DeWine by Sherrod Brown, signaled that Ohio was no longer the Republican bulwark that it has long been.

At stake was Republican control of both the House and the Senate in the most competitive midterm election since Republicans seized control in 1994. That was the last time one party took control of both houses away from the other. This year, Democrats were looking to win 15 seats to capture the House and 6 to win the Senate.

The day included concerns about electronic voting machines being used for the first time in many parts of the country, as well as about often strict new voter registration laws. Problems were reported in a dozen states, including Indiana and Ohio. In parts of eight states, polling hours were extended.

President Bush cast his vote in Crawford, Tex., then returned to Washington to watch the returns at the White House with a group that included Mr. Mehlman and Mr. Rove.

Throughout the day, Republican Party officials said they were encouraged by reports of what they said was high turnout in typically Republican parts of the country, as well as counts of early votes and absentee ballots. They disputed early exit poll findings that suggested that Republican candidates might be in trouble, though they acknowledged the problems the party’s candidates faced this year.

The voting finished an often bitter campaign that pitted a Democratic Party frustrated by years of losses against a White House and a Republican Party acutely aware that losing control of the House or the Senate would fundamentally alter the remainder of Mr. Bush’s presidency.

The Republicans went into the campaign with institutional advantages.

Because of redistricting, few incumbents appeared vulnerable initially. Republicans also had what both parties viewed as the considerable advantage of a powerful and sophisticated get-out-the-vote machine the Republican Party began putting together as soon as Mr. Bush took office in 2001.

Once again, Republicans had a financial advantage, even though vigorous fund-raising efforts by Democrats narrowed the historic gap. Over all, Republicans spent $559 million, compared with $456 million by Democrats, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission. And Mr. Rove made clear that he believed Republicans could again roll to victory by emphasizing terrorism and national security issues, as they have in both national elections since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But by the middle of October, Republicans found they were struggling with what several described as the worst political environment in a generation, making it easier, according to exit polls yesterday, for Democrats to achieve their central strategic objective: Turning this election into a national referendum on Mr. Bush’s leadership and, more generally, on Republican stewardship.

The war in Iraq deteriorated throughout the fall, the American death toll spiked in October, and public opinion turned more firmly against the conflict. Eight in 10 voters who said they approved of the war in Iraq voted Republican, and 8 in 10 voters who said they disapproved voted Democratic, the exit polls said.

In contrast to 2004 and 2002, when the president was sought after by Republican candidates throughout the country, Mr. Bush was extremely unpopular in many parts of the country this year, limiting the places where he was welcome to campaign. He was shunned by his party’s candidate for governor in Florida on Monday, and Democrats ran hundreds of advertisements featuring their Republican opponents standing or sitting next to Mr. Bush. Nearly 4 in 10 voters leaving the polls said their vote yesterday was cast against Mr. Bush.

The Republicans also struggled with corruption scandals, including the resignation in September of Representative Mark Foley, Republican of Florida, after he admitted sending sexually inappropriate messages to teenage pages.

By the end of the campaign, Republicans said they had been forced to spend money in races that should never have been in play, including the one to replace Mr. Foley and another for the seat once held by Tom DeLay of Texas, the former Republican majority leader who resigned from Congress after being indicted on charges of conspiring to violate Texas election laws.

New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/us/politics/08elect.html?ei=5094&en=9b09bde103e26bde&hp=&ex=1163048400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print)

Right now it looks like the Democrats will seize the Senate as well. Here are the latest results: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/elections/2006/Senate.html

Celephais

08-11-06, 12:41

you've thrown some blood in the water there Mona for the political debate boys...

Neteru

08-11-06, 14:06

It'll just be sour grapes from the republicans.

My verdict:http://neteru.tombraiderforums.com/images/woot.gif

jarhead

08-11-06, 14:23

I have no idea what any of that means,

Draco

08-11-06, 15:15

Well that is good news...I suppose.

Ward Dragon

08-11-06, 15:43

It'll just be sour grapes from the republicans.

Not really. Maybe a good kick in the teeth is what the Republicans need to get back on track. The Republicans would be foolish to act petty over this instead of using it as an opportunity to reform themselves in time for the presidential election in two years.

dbot

08-11-06, 16:08

i really couldnt care who runs the senate or the house.

the only thing that bothers me is pieces of **** politicians trying to make themselves look good for parents by blaming video games for societies ills in some bull**** moral panic. And its been largely (but not exclusively) a democrat movement.

I was a bit irritated yesterday on the news when people talked about "democrats having power". Its like noone is americans anymore...youre either republican, democrat, or a GDI or something.

I thank God im an american, and i wouldnt want to be anything else. But a lot of the **** going on in this country is ****ing me the **** off.

Draco

08-11-06, 17:00

Be happy that the factions in our nation can still shake hands without trying to kill each other.

It isn't very bad. Civil Wars have started for less than they do in an election campaign.

Bullethail

08-11-06, 17:05

I'm a bit unhappy. A family friend was running for senator, but lost. :(

Mad Tony

08-11-06, 17:07

I don't know a lot about American politics, but from what I've seen and heard, I think I'll support the Democrats when I move out there.
Looks like Bush is gonna have a hard time for the next two years of his presidency.

Bullethail

08-11-06, 17:09

MT, I'd research before you decide. It all depends on which one is more to your beliefs. You might decide you want to vote for the Republicans! It's kind of complicated.

Mikel Croft

08-11-06, 17:11

I'm excited like no other. :D

Melonie Tomb Raider

08-11-06, 18:30

:(

Mona Sax

08-11-06, 18:39

Montana just went to the Democrats, it's all about Virginia now. Democrat James Webb leads by only 0.3% with 99.8% of all precincts reporting. Damn, this is almost more exciting than 2000/2004. ;)

Ward Dragon

08-11-06, 18:43

Montana just went to the Democrats, it's all about Virginia now. Democrat James Webb leads by only 0.3% with 99.8% of all precincts reporting. Damn, this is almost more exciting than 2000/2004. ;)

Damn, that means we won't know who controls the Senate until December :(

Mona Sax

08-11-06, 18:53

Yep, but since it guarantees a fair vote, a recount is necessary. In the end, it will be worth it, even if nothing changes.

Ward Dragon

08-11-06, 18:54

Yep, but since it guarantees a fair vote, a recount is necessary. In the end, it will be worth it, even if nothing changes.

Yeah, I know. With such a small margin, though, I can foresee this dragging out for quite awhile :(

tlr online

08-11-06, 19:06

"I thought we were doing fine. Shows you how much I know" - George W. Bush speaking this afternoon.

Quite!

GodOfLight

08-11-06, 19:43

:jmp: :jmp: YAY FOR THE DEMOCRATS!! :jmp: :jmp:

Rivendell

08-11-06, 19:46

I have no idea what any of that means,

Well at least I'm not alone :D

dbot

08-11-06, 19:54

maybe its just me, but its wierd to think that both sides have such contempt for the other a lot of the time, sometimes even using the term "republican" or "democrat" as a derogatory term, when both sides are really just doing what they believe is right for the country. It's a shame it comes to such hostilities so much, yknow? Maybe its just me that thinks it.

I dont care who wins what, so long as video games arent criminalized any further than people are trying to do here. Hell, maybe now that stuff will cool down now that elections are over

PARANOIA

08-11-06, 20:00

HOUSE ELECTS LIBERAL LEFTISTS = H.E.L.L.

We'll have the last laugh when we get nuked and overtaxed from under our feet. ;)

Mona Sax

08-11-06, 20:08

maybe its just me, but its wierd to think that both sides have such contempt for the other a lot of the time, sometimes even using the term "republican" or "democrat" as a derogatory term, when both sides are really just doing what they believe is right for the country. It's a shame it comes to such hostilities so much, yknow? Maybe its just me that thinks it.
You're not the only one. Attacking other people because they have a different opinion is ridiculous and doesn't lead anywhere. Worst thing is how many millions of bucks are wasted just to drag opponents through the mire - you can't tell me that money couldn't be used in a more constructive way.

Maybe both parties learn something from these midterms. The Republican party spent approx. $100m more than the Democrats and they still lost big time.

@ Paranoia: You really do your name justice.

Anubis_AF

08-11-06, 20:11

My verdict:http://neteru.tombraiderforums.com/images/woot.gif

Amen. Great news, heard it this morning :tmb:

PARANOIA

08-11-06, 20:17

You're not the only one. Attacking other people because they have a different opinion is ridiculous and doesn't lead anywhere.
I wonder. If that's the case, why do we have these endless debates on these forums?

@ Paranoia: You really do your name justice.
Thank you for stating the obvious. Yes, I am a paranoid cynic, although I'm nowhere near as paranoid as these others who say "Bush is a tyrant! We're going to die! We're going to die!" Would I be considered paranoid if I said that the Republican voters were being suppressed? Probably. ;) Anytime I view life in a happy-go-lucky attitude, something goes wrong, whether or not it's in the form of Kim Jong Il, or Nancy Pelosi.

Oh, yes, I forgot about her. What's going to happen now that she's house speaker? Actually, what will happen in general? What do we expect to see from the Democrats? Answer that question.

I'm not Republican, by the way. I dread associating myself with a party that only represents 50% of my values.

Geck-o-Lizard

08-11-06, 20:19

I wonder. If that's the case, why do we have these endless debates on these forums?

Debating =/= attacking.

Melonie Tomb Raider

08-11-06, 20:21

Well, looks like Bush might have to do a lot of vitoing...

My biggest worry isn't necessarily what will happen now, considering the ultimate power is still conservative; rather, my biggest concern is associated with the elections in '08.

Geck-o-Lizard

08-11-06, 20:26

Heck forbid the other half of your country gets it their way next time. :p

Cochrane

08-11-06, 20:28

I'm not Republican, by the way. I dread associating myself with a party that only represents 50% of my values.
Makes me wonder what the other half of your values is. You seem to have rather non-moderate opinions on many issues.

Mona Sax

08-11-06, 20:29

I wonder. If that's the case, why do we have these endless debates on these forums?
See Gecko's answer. There's a difference between a constructive, healthy discussion and a destructive, dirty fight.
Would I be considered paranoid if I said that the Republican voters were being suppressed? Probably. ;)
Not probably, definitely.
Oh, yes, I forgot about her. What's going to happen now that she's house speaker? Actually, what will happen in general? What do we expect to see from the Democrats? Answer that question.
I don't know, I'm far from being a Democrat or a member of any other political party. I can only mention what I hope for:
- No more useless wars in countries that pose no imminent threat to the U.S.
- A quick retreat from Iraq. Nobody wants U.S. soldiers there.
- A more environment-friendly and responsible policy.
- A more liberal social approach. "Live and let live" as opposed to the neo-cons' "oppress everything that's different" motto.
- Justice for Bush and his goons, including everybody who was/is involved in international law violations - war in Iraq, Guantanamo, secret prisons, unlawful abductions of citizens (wishful thinking, I know).

I realize most of that list won't be implemented, at least not until there's a Democratic president (maybe the first female?). However, I think it can't get any worse in a constitutional state than it currently is. One step further and the U.S. would truly be part of the infamous "axis of evil". Bush and his friends got it dangerously close to being a banana republic as it is.

Melonie Tomb Raider

08-11-06, 20:30

Heaven forbid more innocent babies are killed... among many other things.

This isn't a matter of who is right or wrong, there are ethical issues behind it all. I'm a conservative because I am an ethical person.

Geck-o-Lizard

08-11-06, 20:35

You're suggesting that liberals choose that political orientation because they don't believe in ethics. Many liberals don't support abortion, euthanasia, GM, stem cell research, etc. for the same reason as you don't. Being liberal =/= unethical. Regardless of who's in office, no law to permit abortion will be passed without lots of fuss.

GodOfLight

08-11-06, 20:36

Heaven forbid more innocent babies are killed... among many other things.

This isn't a matter of who is right or wrong, there are ethical issues behind it all. I'm a conservative because I am an ethical person.

no youre not. you're a religious person. you're equating ethics with religion. ethics can be universal, wheras religious stances are segratory. ethics can be anything. someone's ethics could be to follow the bible word for word (your case) or someone's ethics could be to not follow the bible. ethics are a belief system, not neccesarily religious or in accord with the bible.

Melonie Tomb Raider

08-11-06, 20:42

I never said all liberals believe that way, but the cold, hard fact is that most do. There's no denying that.

Hypothetical scenario:

A Liberal and Conservative run against each other during the Presidential elections in '08. Mr./Mrs. Liberal does not support abortion, euthanasia, GM, stem cell research, et., but Mr./Mr. Conservative does.

My vote would go to Mr. Liberal.

However, realistically speaking, I think we all understand where the majority stands, and the likelyhood of the board thereof.

Other issues, such as taxes, economy, etc. must most definitely be taken into account; although, I put nothing above my ethical standards. I refuse to cast my vote, therefore contributing, to anything I find unethical. Which, in turn, makes me a Conservative. Hate me all you want...

Celephais

08-11-06, 20:43

Oh come on guys, for all everyone's ideological duelling about the morality and ethics of this and that, what you all, really, truly want, is lower taxes. :p

Jade Rae

08-11-06, 20:43

I agree with you Melonie, I also voted conservative because I have examined what the different men and woman say they are and aren't going to do and base that on what I believe.
If a democrat was running for what I believe to be correct, I would vote for him/her.

GodOfLight

08-11-06, 20:44

i don't think anyone hates you melonie. one can only hate oneself.

Mona Sax

08-11-06, 20:44

This isn't a matter of who is right or wrong, there are ethical issues behind it all. I'm a conservative because I am an ethical person.
I don't agree. I'm very liberal and I still consider myself very ethical because I try not to hurt anybody and to tolerate everybody. We only disagree when it comes to certain apperciations of values - for example, I rate women's right to decide what happens to them higher than a fetus' life. Same goes for homosexual people's right to marry whoever they want and religious people's interest in marriage being a man/woman only thing. You disagree. Neither of us is right ore more ethical, we just have different perspectives and experiences.

Geck-o-Lizard

08-11-06, 20:46

Not trying to go into a thing about abortion here, I'm just sticking with this example because it came up first. :p

Personally I support abortion because I don't like the idea that women would have to be forced through the physical, emotional and psychological trauma of an extremely unwanted pregnancy. I don't believe that babies can feel anything until they're in the second half of the pregnancy. Thus I find it unethical to forbid women the chance to abort early pregnancy. You find it unethical to allow them to do so. We have polar-opposite opinions on what's ethical here, so you can't call people unethical when their beliefs collide with yours.

Flipper1987

08-11-06, 20:47

You're suggesting that liberals choose that political orientation because they don't believe in ethics. Many liberals don't support abortion, euthanasia, GM, stem cell research, etc.

Although I do agree that there are many ethical liberals, it's certainly clear (at least in the U.S.) that the vast majority (90%+) of "liberals" in the U.S. DO SUPPORT abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and assisted suicide, and unfortunately many of them have a nasty habit of looking down their noses at those individuals who have the gall to disagree with them. Thankfully there are some "liberals" in the U.S. who are a bit more tolerant.

FLIPPER

Geck-o-Lizard

08-11-06, 20:48

The "looking down the noses" thing isn't limited to liberals, so let's not go into that one.

As for that 90%+ figure, where'd you get that?

Melonie Tomb Raider

08-11-06, 20:49

no youre not. you're a religious person. you're equating ethics with religion. ethics can be universal, wheras religious stances are segratory. ethics can be anything. someone's ethics could be to follow the bible word for word (your case) or someone's ethics could be to not follow the bible. ethics are a belief system, not neccesarily religious or in accord with the bible.

So because my ethics coincide with the Bible I am not an ethical person?

I guess that means you are not a law abiding citizen, because the rules you follow are written...

I've clearly stated that my ethics are in conjunction with that of most Conservatives, that is what sets me apart and that is why I support the people I do. Sure, I might agree in other areas with the particular cantidates, but ethical issues are what I find more important.

Just because I am a Christian doesn't mean I don't have a mind of my own. I am entitled to my beliefs, just as you are. I've stated the way I believe, stop trying to tell me otherwise. You do not know me.

You make great efforts in attempt to smother me and distort my vision with my Christian beliefs. Why don't you speak for yourself for a change, you're not going to get anywhere trying to speak on my behalf, because you don't know a thing. You may think you have me figured out, but rest assured, you don't.

Mona Sax

08-11-06, 20:52

Although I do agree that there are many ethical liberals, it's certainly clear (at least in the U.S.) that the vast majority (90%+) of "liberals" in the U.S. DO SUPPORT abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and assisted suicide
And that makes them Satan incarnate? No. It just means they don't agree with you.

I agree with you about some liberals' attitude, but take a look around - a whole lot of conservatives are just the same. It's a human, not a specifically liberal trait. If at all, liberals are less arrogant because tolerance is one of liberalism's pillars.

Legends

08-11-06, 20:53

Quite...

Melonie Tomb Raider

08-11-06, 20:53

I agree with you Melonie, I also voted conservative because I have examined what the different men and woman say they are and aren't going to do and base that on what I believe.
If a democrat was running for what I believe to be correct, I would vote for him/her.

Nice to meet you Jade. :) :wve:

For the record, I need to clarify that I am not calling anyone unethical in their own right, obviously liberal ethics vastly differ from my own.

And geck, I hate to talk about abortion and distort this whole thread, but the way I see it: killing an innocent life = murder. No if, ands, or buts. If a woman was raped and got pregnant, that is a terrible tragedy, but that does not justify murder. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Geck-o-Lizard

08-11-06, 20:55

So because my ethics coincide with the Bible I am not an ethical person?

Everyone has slightly different ideas on what's ethical or not. Someone is ethical if they have a set of beliefs on what's "right" and "wrong" that they adhere to and practise in their every-day lives. If you have those beliefs but don't follow them up with actions, then you'd be unethical. It's got nothing to do with the individual things you believe.

[edit]

And geck, I hate to talk about abortion and distort this whole thread, but the way I see it: killing an innocent life = murder. No if, ands, or buts. If a woman was raped and got pregnant, that is a terrible tragedy, but that does not justify murder. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Yes, and this is your belief, and I absolutely understand and respect it. :) You are totally ethical in your support of this belief because you so strongly believe it. You understand, it has very little to do with what you believe.

Melonie Tomb Raider

08-11-06, 20:56

Which is why I have stated above that our ethics obviously differ. I never called anyone here unethical.

rika2

08-11-06, 20:57

Be happy that the factions in our nation can still shake hands without trying to kill each other.

It isn't very bad. Civil Wars have started for less than they do in an election campaign.

True... U.S.A. govermnent isn't that ****ed up if you think about it. Countries like Cuba, China, Chile or even my own are much more screwed...

Jade Rae

08-11-06, 20:59

I agree with Mona Sax that Conservatives and Liberals can be just as nasty. Over the past few years I have seen a growing amount of that.

And for those of you who think abortion should be legal, assisted sucide should be legal ect. ect., if you have logically thought out your beliefs and are prepared to die with them, I would be interested in how you came to your conclusions, but I certianly wouldn't argue.

And it's nice to meet you too Melonie!

Mona Sax

08-11-06, 20:59

@ Mel: I know.

I only commented because you said you were conservative because you were ethical, which means people who aren't conservative can't be. Everybody who's ethical would automatically have to be conservative.

Melonie Tomb Raider

08-11-06, 21:00

Alright Mona, I understand your stance. I could have clarified myself better. :)

Geck-o-Lizard

08-11-06, 21:01

@ Mel: I know.

I only commented because you said you were conservative because you were ethical, which means people who aren't conservative can't be. Everybody who's ethical would automatically have to be conservative.

Ditto. Your post about being conservative because you're ethical seems to be a suggestion that liberals are unethical by definition.

However; apologies if that wasn't what you meant. ;)

Mona Sax

08-11-06, 21:07

And for those of you who think abortion should be legal, assisted sucide should be legal ect. ect., if you have logically thought out your beliefs and are prepared to die with them, I would be interested in how you came to your conclusions, but I certianly wouldn't argue.
IMHO:
- Women's rights are more important than fetus' rights. A fetus isn't a fully developed human being, therefore killing it isn't murder.
- Everybody has the right to decide when they want to die. People who are assisting can't be punished since they don't harm anybody - quite the opposite: they help. Nobody has the right to decide whether another person should live or die.

Those opinions are partly founded in science (fetus), partly in my own personal considerations. Therefore, they can't be fully substantiated. I don't have a book that tells me what to do in every possible situation, I just believe that everybody has a personal space where they can decide themselves and society has to stay out because it's nobody's business. Pregnancy and death are just two of many cases. As I mentioned above, live and let live.

Flipper1987

08-11-06, 21:08

I don't know, I'm far from being a Democrat or a member of any other political party. I can only mention what I hope for:
- No more useless wars in countries that pose no imminent threat to the U.S.

The Taliban governemnt of Afghanistan posed absolutely no threat to the U.S. before it led a UN-supported coalition of countries into it. The Taliban was toppled b/c of their support of Al-Qaeda and giving them safe haven. Was that a useless war?

- A quick retreat from Iraq. Nobody wants U.S. soldiers there.

That's absolutely not true. Please show me a poll where 0% of the Iraqi population wants the US there. Please show me a poll where every single person in the civilized world doesn't want the U.S. - led coalition in Iraq.

- A more liberal social approach. "Live and let live" as opposed to the neo-cons' "oppress everything that's different" motto.

This comment shows two things. First, you don't know what a neo-con is. Second, you have no clue about the conservative mindset. Conservatives don't adhere to an "oppress everything that's different" motto. Please stop painting people you don't agree with with such a broad stroke. I'm sure you find it offensive when others do it to you.

- Justice for Bush and his goons, including everybody who was/is involved in international law violations - war in Iraq, Guantanamo, secret prisons, unlawful abductions of citizens (wishful thinking, I know).

Funny, you mention Bush but you don't mention Al-Qaeda, or Saddam loyalists. Who exactly is killing the people in Iraq? How about the U.N.? Hezbollah?

I realize most of that list won't be implemented, at least not until there's a Democratic president (maybe the first female?). However, I think it can't get any worse in a constitutional state than it currently is.

Then you are not thinking hard enough.

One step further and the U.S. would truly be part of the infamous "axis of evil". Bush and his friends got it dangerously close to being a banana republic as it is.

That's ridiculous on so many levels; however, I won't elaborate b/c I might get banned.

FLIPPER - war criminal

tlr online

08-11-06, 21:11

IMHO:
- Women's rights are more important than fetus' rights. A foetus isn't a fully developed human being, therefore killing it isn't murder.

Not sure I agree with this. A woman can still fight for her rights, whereas a foetus cannot.

However I do support stemcell research.

Catapharact

08-11-06, 21:12

"I thought we were doing fine. Shows you how much I know" - George W. Bush speaking this afternoon.

Quite!

Haha, the man was in denial right to the bitter end.

Proof positive people that Americans indeed aren't hicks. I do give the American population credit; They do know what is in their best interest; They just chose the lesser of two evils (even if he has an IQ of 92 and chokes on a pretzel... Yay... The perfect man to represent the world's super power [/Sarcasam])

Iraq is costing billions and on top of that Bush may have ****ed off China in the process Lol! It would be ludicrious to give the Republicans free run again.

Who exactly is killing the people in Iraq? How about the U.N.? Hezbollah?

If the UN actually had free reign in passing its resolutions without the possibility of a US Veto then we might get somewhere. Hezbollah; Well there has to be some deterence to Israel. Notice how you didn't mention the political wing of the party and went directly at the extremists.

And if Saddam was toppled over by the Iraqi people themselves, Insurgency and terrorit actions wouldn't have risen up.

tlr online

08-11-06, 21:16

That's absolutely not true. Please show me a poll where 0% of the Iraqi population wants the US there. Please show me a poll where every single person in the civilized world doesn't want the U.S. - led coalition in Iraq.

We've still imposed our own government's ideals on the Iraqi people, and installed a government sympathetic to America.

Mona Sax

08-11-06, 21:16

@ Flipper: I fully stand by my points, so I won't comment any further. One exception: "Nobody wants U.S. soldiers there" was an exaggeration, and you know it. No more comments about that from me either.

The "looking down the noses" thing isn't limited to liberals, so let's not go into that one.

I never said it was limited to liberals.

As for that 90%+ figure, where'd you get that?

I live in the U.S., I have followed U.S. politics closely for the last 25 years, and every liberal that I have met, seen on TV, chatted with on-line, debated with in chat rooms, etc... for the last 20 years are supporters of abortion & (recently) stem cell research. I'm not trying to insult anyone here but it's pretty much true. There are "liberals" who may oppose abortion but they are a tiny minority.

So in effect you're saying the rights of a women are more important than a new life?

Flipper1987

08-11-06, 21:20

We've still imposed our own government's ideals on the Iraqi people, and installed a government sympathetic to America.

Yeeees....all those millions and millions and millions and millions and millions of Iraqi citizens who voted last year (under threat of death from terrorists & Saddamists) in three separate elections to set up their own constitution and government and proudly displayed their purple fingers were forced to do that. You're right, no one wants democracy in Iraq. My mistake. :)

So in effect you're saying the rights of a women are more important than a new life?
Yes.

Geck-o-Lizard

08-11-06, 21:23

Please stop painting people you don't agree with with such a broad stroke. I'm sure you find it offensive when others do it to you.

(90%+) of "liberals" in the U.S. DO SUPPORT abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and assisted suicide, and unfortunately many of them have a nasty habit of looking down their noses at those individuals who have the gall to disagree with them.

You still haven't told me where you got that "90%+" statistic from. Til you back up your posts, put your own broad-stroke brush back down.

tlr online

08-11-06, 21:23

Yeeees....all those millions and millions and millions and millions and millions of Iraqi citizens who voted last year (under threat of death from terrorists & Saddamists) in three separate elections to set up their own government and proudly displayed their purple fingers were forced to do that. You're right, no one wants democracy in Iraq. My mistake. :)

FLIPPER - war criminal

How benevolent of America, Flipper. And I don't for one minute take the U.S. propaganda machine at face value. Look at Iraq today. The country is on the verge of fracturing into splinter states.

Catapharact

08-11-06, 21:28

How benevolent of America, Flipper. And I don't for one minute take the U.S. propaganda machine at face value. Look at Iraq today. The country is on the verge of fracturing into splinter states.

Thankyou.

The fact of the matter is, like every dictator, Saddam was seeing his ending days. It would have been a matter of time when an internal revolt by the Iraqis themselves would have thrown the moron out of power and they would have crafted a constitution and a mode of govenment all on their own without possible insugency presence (Hey.... There isn't a reason for the insurgents to set up shop now is there.)

Americans should know this; After all, didn't the founding fathers themselves faced the same delimma and solved it? If they were alive today, they would given Bush swift kickings.

tlr online

08-11-06, 21:31

Thankyou.

The fact of the matter is, like every dictator, Saddam was seeing his ending days. It would have been a matter of time when an internal revolt by the Iraqis themselves would have thrown the moron out of power and they would have crafted a constitution and a mode of govenment all on their own without possible insugency presence (Hey.... There isn't a reason for the insurgents to set up shop now is there.)

Americans should know this; After all, didn't the founding fathers themselves faced the same delimma and conqured it? If they were alive today, they would given Bush swift kickings.

Catapharact. Reflecting on an earlier post referencing U.S.- backed coups (http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa01.html) and invasions by U.S (http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa02.html). since 1940s, it's little wonder our global panorama is looking so grim. I don't support their methods, but remember factions like al-Qaeda were set up "with the stated objective of eliminating foreign influence in Muslim countries, and reestablishing the califate."

Mona Sax

08-11-06, 21:33

Americans should know this; After all, didn't the founding fathers themselves faced the same delimma and conqured it? If they were alive today, they would given Bush swift kickings.
True. What happened to the ideals of liberty, freedom and home rule?
What about "of the people, by the people and for the people"?

I don't see any of it, neither in Iraq nor in America. Bush's government works against, not towards those liberal principles.

tlr online

08-11-06, 21:34

And Bush's statement that "I thought we were doing fine. Shows you how much I know" is unacceptable as a means of trying to rally support for his actions.

Think about that for a moment. The commander in chief of the most powerful nation on Earth, throwing up his arms and declaring ignorance.

Unacceptable, and an embarrassment. The wrong man left office today!

Geck-o-Lizard

08-11-06, 21:35

Shock, horror! Politician tells truth! :D

Flipper1987

08-11-06, 21:37

How benevolent of America, Flipper. And I don't for one minute take the U.S. propaganda machine at face value. Look at Iraq today. The country is on the verge of fracturing into splinter states.

And who is causing that tlr? And who is trying to make the new democratic government work in Iraq, tlr?

FLIPPER - war criminal

Catapharact

08-11-06, 21:39

Factions like Al-Qaidea get their backings in war-torn countries that need help to survive. Look at prime places of insurgency bases. Afganistan, Lebenon, etc. Taking Hezbollah as an example; Lebenon was totally demolished after the Yomi-Kapur war with Israel. With lack of means to rebuilt their own infrastructure, the people looked to Hezbollah who gladly helped Lebenon get back on its feet. Now, in your mind, who do you think the people will support in this instance? The government who was so powerless to help, or Hezbollah?

Hezbollah itself has a political wing to the party that sadly gets ignored most of the time (No one wants to see the bright side of negitivity I guess.)

Geck-o-Lizard

08-11-06, 21:40

And who is causing that tlr? And who is trying to make the new democratic government work in Iraq, tlr?

FLIPPER - war criminal

The new "democratic" government is pro-US. That's the main reason why good ol' America is trying to make it work instead of dismantling it.

tlr online

08-11-06, 21:41

And who is trying to make the new democratic government work in Iraq, tlr?

FLIPPER - war criminal

America, Flipper, because America wanted to install a government sympathetic to its own concerns.

Tell me Flipper, who's next? North Korea?

tlr online

08-11-06, 21:43

Factions like Al-Qaidea get their backings in war-torn countries that need help to survive. Look at prime places of insurgency bases. Afganistan, Lebenon, etc. Taking Hezbollah as an example; Lebenon was totally demolished after the Yomi-Kapur war with Israel. With lack of means to rebuilt their own infrastructure, the people looked to Hezbollah who gladly helped Lebenon get back on its feet. Now, in your mind, who do you think the people will support in this instance? The government who was so powerless to help, or Hezbollah?

Hezbollah itself has a political wing to the party that sadly gets ignored most of the time (No one wants to see the bright side of negitivity I guess.)
But isn't Israel U.S. backed?

Flipper1987

08-11-06, 21:43

True. What happened to the ideals of liberty, freedom and home rule?
What about "of the people, by the people and for the people"?

Then you must support the removal of Saddam b/c none of that was happening in Iraq before 2003.

I don't see any of it, neither in Iraq nor in America. Bush's government works against, not towards those liberal principles.

So I guess voting in Iraq doesn't qualify as a "liberal" principle? How about freedom of speech? Both of those (and many more) occur now in Iraq and have existed for 230 years in the US.

FLIPPER - war criminal

Catapharact

08-11-06, 21:44

Lets for instance say that the U.S. intention is to set up a liable govenment. With the increase U.S. influence over the region, the people have a right to be skeptical about the whole senerio.

It would be like the Soviet Union setting up a method of election for Americans. They can say that its fair but would the American people believe them?

tlr online

08-11-06, 21:45

Despite what you may think of me Flipper (not a lot, if your signature is anything to go by) but I have a lot respect for you and your arguments, but whether you like it or not, America has become the modern-day British Empire. It's a shame you folks didn't learn from our mistakes.

Catapharact

08-11-06, 21:47

But isn't Israel U.S. backed?

Much so. Much of the Armaments sold to Israel are from the U.S. And people wonder as to why Palestinians blame the U.S.

It's a shame you folks didn't learn from our mistakes.

They have... They only forgot all about it.

When an American says he knows about the price of War, he isn't kidding. The American civil war alone was the most bloodiest bloodbath of them all (more so than WWI and 2 mind you. Ulysses really didn't have a definate war plan.)

Its a pity that ppl just keep forgetting the lessons learned.

Flipper1987

08-11-06, 21:54

America, Flipper, because America wanted to install a government sympathetic to its own concerns.
What "concerns" are you talking about, tlr? That they support us in fighting terrorists? That they support us in improving women's rights? No wait, let me guess....oil, right? Yes, when in doubt say "oil."

The US also set up sympathetic governments in Germany & Japan starting in 1945, and in Afghanistan in 2001.

Tell me Flipper, who's next? North Korea?
What are your solutions, tlr? You are excellent at criticizing but you never offer any realistic suggestions to solve any of the world's tense problems. All you do is predictably *****, moan, and groan about everything the US does. Bush is trying to set up 6-way talks with N. Korea (Kim Jong-Il finally agreed to come back to the table just last week). But I'm sure that's not good enough for you, is it tlr?

What is your solution about Iran? What about China & Taiwan? How do you propose to stop Russia from shutting off natural gas to western Europe in the future? What about the influx of Muslims into Europe, many of whom aren't interested in acclimating to the culture?

Complain away, tlr.

FLIPPER - flagrant war criminal

tlr online

08-11-06, 21:55

Much so. Much of the Armaments sold to Israel are from the U.S. And people wonder as to why Palestinians blame the U.S.

They have... They only forgot all about it.

When an American says they know about the price of War, they aren't kidding. The American civil war alone was the most bloodiest bloodbath of them all (more so than WWI and 2 mind you. Ulysses really didn't have a definate war plan.)

Its a pity that ppl just keep forgetting the lessons learned.

This is the whole point I'm making, and I refer again to U.S.- backed coups (http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa01.html) and invasions by U.S (http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa02.html) since the 40s.

Most of those have been sanctioned to install governments sympathetic to the U.S. It's the British Empire all over again. What does America think she's doing? And the U.S. wonders why it's so reviled and attacked via any method to hand. It has to stop, and I believe it will stop, and I also believe the U.S. will fall, slowly but surely, brick by brick, and a lot of innocent lives will be lost.

You know. The whole thing is just so tragic. We've come so far as a race. We're pushing back the boundaries in technology, science, space exploration, yet we can't manage something as rudimentary as coexistence.

Mona Sax

08-11-06, 21:56

Then you must support the removal of Saddam b/c none of that was happening in Iraq before 2003.

So I guess voting in Iraq doesn't qualify as a "liberal" principle? How about freedom of speech? Both of those (and many more) occur now in Iraq and have existed for 230 years in the US.

FLIPPER - war criminal
I do support the removal of Saddam because he was a tyrant and hated by his own people (things would be different if they'd wanted him). However, I would've preferred the Iraqi people to do it since the Middle East is none of America's business, at least not without a U.N. mandate. With Saddam's removal, the ongoing presence of U.S. troops turned into an occupation.

Voting in Iraq was heavily flawed for two reasons:
- U.S. friendly politicians were supported by the American government. Saddam's Baath party was and still is considered illegal.
- It was carried out by the U.S.
Even if it had been fair and "liberal", it still wouldn't be any of America's business. Nobody gave anybody a mandate to spread liberalism in the world.

Freedom of speech has been undermined in America by the wiretapping scandal and the factual rejection of all criticism as being "unpatriotic". Things are beginning to get better again because people are taking their rights back on their own.

Catapharact

08-11-06, 21:56

What about the influx of Muslims into Europe, many of whom aren't interested in acclimating to the culture?

You may as well stop the ball there Flipper; You're very close to dennying Muslims the right that the U.S. oh so totally values.

tlr online

08-11-06, 22:00

What are your solutions, tlr? You are excellent at criticizing but you never offer any realistic suggestions to solve any of the world's tense problems. All you do is predictably *****, moan, and groan about everything the US does.
Oh that's easy Flipper, natural evolution! A luxury both the U.S. and U.K have enjoyed. I do not agree with imposing ideals through the use of force. There can be nothing positive from that method of unification.

If you try and force a child's hand, you will meet resistance. If you then beat the living **** out of them, yeah, perhaps you'll get your own way.

Fear tends to do that.

Flipper1987

08-11-06, 22:01

Despite what you may think of me Flipper (not a lot, if your signature is anything to go by)

The "war criminal" sig is in reference to a comment you made in another thread about 2004 Bush supporters that I found offensive.

but I have a lot respect for you and your arguments

thank you - I do agree our debates are interesting and do get heated.

but whether you like it or not, America has become the modern-day British Empire. It's a shame you folks didn't learn from our mistakes.

Actually we did....that's why Afghanistan and Iraq will not becom the 51st and 52nd state.

FLIPPER

Catapharact

08-11-06, 22:01

This is the whole point I'm making, and I refer again to U.S.- backed coups (http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa01.html) and invasions by U.S (http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa02.html) since the 40s.

Most of those have been sanctioned to install governments sympathetic to the U.S. It's the British Empire all over again. What does America think she's doing? And the U.S. wonders why it's so reviled and attacked via any method to hand. It has to stop, and I believe it will stop, and I also believe the U.S. will fall, slowly but surely, brick by brick, and a lot of innocent lives will be lost.

You know. The whole thing is just so tragic. We've come so far as a race. We're pushing back the boundaries in technology, science, space exploration, yet we can't manage something as rudimentary as coexistence.

As much as I would totally love to agree with you Justin, reality forces me tho think otherwise. There always will be a need for policing the world (or else wars shall run rampant.) I just don't think the U.S. should be doing it.

Solution: A restructured and stronger armed U.N. No friggin veto power what so ever, equal representation of the continents and a renforced army that answers to no one but the Security council.

tlr online

08-11-06, 22:04

What about the influx of Muslims into Europe, many of whom aren't interested in acclimating to the culture?

Complain away, tlr.

FLIPPER - flagrant war criminal

Oh I agree with you there. We have a real problem with immigration atm. But is attack really the best form of defence? (< If my coach read that, he would kick my ass ;) )

We could combat that by closing our borders, and imposing trade santions.

Flipper1987

08-11-06, 22:06

You may as well stop the ball there Flipper; You're very close to dennying Muslims the right that the U.S. oh so totally values.

What rights are those Catapharact? I'm not suggesting that European countries should halt all Muslim immigration. The refusal of some Muslims to become part of the culture of the country that they moved into has led to some problems in Europe. This has been widely reported in the US.

By the way, I think George Washington would look at all the facts before kicking someone in the pants as you suggest. Also, Grant did have a plan to end ther Civil War - it was called Total War. It was messy but it ended the war.

FLIPPER

tlr online

08-11-06, 22:06

Solution: A restructured and stronger armed U.N. No friggin veto power what so ever, equal representation of the continents and a renforced army that answers to no one but the Security council.

It will never happen, because some countries will not recognise the voices of others.

Pipolinne

08-11-06, 22:08

I'm glad the Democrats won,though,as European,I'll be even happier if we were more assertive in our views ,regardless of other countries's governments.

I also agree with Catapharact concerning Hezbollah: not only it was elected,and,therefore,should be respected,as,like any other party,has a more radical wing,which,sadly,gains all the attention!

Concerning the abortion subject,though it's not directly a topic of this thread,once some members stated their opinion,I'll do the same.

I find rather interesting when people speak of a "new life",whose start isn't yet decided,opposing the rights of a celular organism to women's ones.

Quite frequently,women loose those "lives" never realizing, them or their companions,that a natural miscarriage took place,once its thought to be simply menstruation.

Also,when a clearly natural miscarriage happens,we never heard the medical staff saying a life was lost. It seems only when women's right to decide to have a baby or not it's at stake,some people decide to speak about "life".

Once we're speaking about the american situation,I do hope a majority of democrats means women will be able to decide about to continue or not their pregnancy,having the necessary means to make the abortion,if that's their wish.

Catapharact

08-11-06, 22:12

What rights are those Catapharact? I'm not suggesting that European countries should halt all Muslim immigration. The refusal of some Muslims to become part of the culture of the country that they moved into has led to some problems in Europe. This has been widely reported in the US.

Well if you're gonnahave laws that totally disban culture whatsoever (case and point: France) you're gonna see resistance. People tend to adapt to culture if they aren't seen as outsiders. Canada can be seen as a prime example of multicultural diversity.

Total war... As in waste every single bit of resource until you might very well see a crippled nation and have nothing to comeback to. Yes; quite ingenious...[/Sarcasam]

Its quite a miracle that the U.S. managed to recover from it all.

And God... Washington TOTALLY despised the idea of Imperalistic methods. He refused to take power himself to begin with to avoid the same mistake British monarchs made. Its only the fear of anarchy that forced the idea of creating a head of state.

Catapharact

08-11-06, 22:14

It will never happen, because some countries will not recognise the voices of others.

Actually it won't be recongnized because Asia would win easily ;) Lol! As much as many don't like it... China IS the next Superpower (if it isn't economically already so.)

tlr online

08-11-06, 22:16

China IS the next Superpower (if it isn't economically already so.)

Yup. You're absolutely right. Economically, I read China will overtake the U.S. in 2008 as the world's biggest economy if the current growth rate continues.

That's why I can't understand why they aren't leading in other areas.

Catapharact

08-11-06, 22:17

Yup. You're absolutely right. Economically, I read China will overtake the U.S. in 2008 as the world's biggest economy if the current growth rate continues.

That's why I can't understand why they aren't leading in other areas.

Because change takes time. Give it a few years.

Flipper1987

08-11-06, 22:17

Oh that's easy Flipper, natural evolution! A luxury both the U.S. and U.K have enjoyed. I do not agree with imposing ideals through the use of force. There can be nothing positive from that method of unification.

Oh no not this theory again. :) It is true that the US & the UK largely benefitted from natural evolution; however, not to sound like a broken record (too late), your theory of natural evolution sounds great on the surface but it has led to some of the most brutal regimes in human history such as the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Fascist Italy.

If you try and force a child's hand, you will meet resistance. If you then beat the living **** out of them, yeah, perhaps you'll get your own way.

Fear tends to do that.

Yes but what if the child's hand is trying to build nuclear weapons and the child has repeatedly called for the destruction of another country and its people? Should we wait for that to naturally evolve too? Probably not. What if reasoning with the child goes on for years and doesn't work because the child is hell-bent on destroying another country? Unfortunately diplomacy, which I prefer, doesn't always work.

FLIPPER

SSJ6Wolf

08-11-06, 22:21

Being from Connecticut, I'm glad to see Joe Lieberman made it. There was a truckload of mud-slinging on him from Lamont. I hate mud-slinging, it doesn't help anyone and it turns politics into a circus. :(

Looking at the larger picture I'm pleased as well. We need congress and the whitehouse to put each other in check. I'd rather have it be less efficient than have Bush get away with whatever he wants. He seems to like pushing his ideas through without working out the flaws first.

I don't know why we have to start using electronic voting machines. It seems a step too far for me. And definitely not ironed out against frauds. My parents say that the lever machines are fine as is, but I won't find out for myself until next year.

Flipper1987

08-11-06, 22:26

Total war... As in waste every single bit of resource until you might very well see a crippled nation and have nothing to comeback to. Yes; quite ingenious...[/Sarcasam]

Its quite a miracle that the U.S. managed to recover from it all.

Well the reality was that the Civil War had dragged on for 3 years before Grant's ascension to commanding general and it would have most likely lasted 3 more if Total War wasn't employed. Yeah it wasted lives and resources, but it ended the war and most likely saved more lives in the long run.

And God... Washington TOTALLY despised the idea of Imperalistic methods. He refused to take power himself to begin with to avoid the same mistake British monarchs made. Its only the fear of anarchy that forced the idea of creating a head of state.

True, and he also warned the nation not to get involved in foreign affairs b/c it would lead the US into endless, costly wars that could bankrupt the new nation. The US followed that philosophy for the next 145 years (with minor deviations here & there) until WWII and the resulting Cold War made US isolationism an impossibility.

By the way, Catapharact, I'm impressed with your knowledge of basic US history.

FLIPPER

Ward Dragon

08-11-06, 23:37

Being from Connecticut, I'm glad to see Joe Lieberman made it. There was a truckload of mud-slinging on him from Lamont. I hate mud-slinging, it doesn't help anyone and it turns politics into a circus. :(

Indeed. Lieberman got royally screwed over by his party and it was good to see him win despite it all :) I only wish he (or someone like him) would be taking the lead in Congress instead of some of the more extreme candidates that are lined up for the jobs.

I don't know why we have to start using electronic voting machines. It seems a step too far for me. And definitely not ironed out against frauds. My parents say that the lever machines are fine as is, but I won't find out for myself until next year.

That reminds me--is Virginia using electronic voting machines? If they are, then how the hell can they do a recount? "Yup, the computer still says the same numbers..." :rolleyes:

JANKERSON

09-11-06, 04:27

The problem with US politics is that both parties are just as corrupt as the other and both will get the US to the same ugly end.

People forget who really runs the US, it's the Corporations that are really in charge so it doesn't matter who in the White House or the Senate and the House.

What is really needed is for all of them to be voted out and a new fresh start making those special interest groups and lobbyist stay away forever.

It's supposed to be We the People For the People.....

Not for: Who ever pays them the most.......

The US Government as a whole is a Pathetic Corrupt mess at best.

Melonie Tomb Raider

09-11-06, 04:39

The US Government as a whole is a Pathetic Corrupt mess at best.

Meh.... I disagree. I love my country, oh do I ever love my country. I am a patriot, and very, very, very proud of where I reside. This country is not perfect, without a doubt, but we are free, proud, brave, and just so.... I'm so amazed, I love my country. Our Government is doing a fine job, I am very pleased with how our forefathers have established it.

Neteru

09-11-06, 05:55

Final seat in the Senate called for the Democrats! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6131122.stm)

Draco

09-11-06, 06:28

Yes but what if the child's hand is trying to build nuclear weapons and the child has repeatedly called for the destruction of another country and its people? Should we wait for that to naturally evolve too? Probably not. What if reasoning with the child goes on for years and doesn't work because the child is hell-bent on destroying another country? Unfortunately diplomacy, which I prefer, doesn't always work.

The only problem with this statement is that the US is the child here. That and I don't think we should give a **** about people killing each other. The world needs less people.

Melonie Tomb Raider

09-11-06, 06:33

....wow.... O.o

JANKERSON

09-11-06, 06:38

Meh.... I disagree. I love my country, oh do I ever love my country. I am a patriot, and very, very, very proud of where I reside. This country is not perfect, without a doubt, but we are free, proud, brave, and just so.... I'm so amazed, I love my country. Our Government is doing a fine job, I am very pleased with how our forefathers have established it.

Free?

Not really as people in our country were back when our Forefathers founded this country.

Or even say 100 years ago.

The people are what makes the US a great Country, not our Pathetic Government or the Greedy Corporations that have our Pathetically Corrupt Politicians on a string.

Our freedoms have been going away for over 100 years, faster in the past 50 years or so with our Bill Of Rights and Constitution meaning less with every year that passes.

Our future is Corporate slavery and it has been going that way now for Decades. Once the right people are in the Key positions the tables will turn and our rights will be gone.

There is a huge Socialist movement inside our Government and they will get what they want.

Is the US a great Country? Yes

Is it as good as it was 50 years ago? NO

Just in case anyone asks I am a right wing Conservative and a Christian.

Personally I have no Faith in our Government at all anymore.

Draco

09-11-06, 06:43

....wow.... O.o

I'm being honest. Unless they specifically ask for our help...why should my tax dollars be spent on it? We have many better things to do, like concentrate on keeping our economic superiority.

JANKERSON

09-11-06, 06:53

I'm being honest. Unless they specifically ask for our help...why should my tax dollars be spent on it? We have many better things to do, like concentrate on keeping our economic superiority.

I agree there.

I really hate it when our tax money goes over to other countries when there are people in the US who pay taxes and are struggling just to get by day by day.

With the Expenses going up and the wages going down it's not a good thing at all. There was an article written about it not too long ago. The article stated that the Corporations are making more profit than they ever have in the history of our Country and the wages are at an all time low percentage wise. Add in all of the Outsourcing and other ways to cut people wages and we are in big trouble and it will get worse.

Once the Global Economy shifts and it will in a few years once China has become the Super Power the US will be in HUGE trouble. The American workers will suffer even worse than they did back in the Depression days.

GodOfLight

09-11-06, 07:09

So because my ethics coincide with the Bible I am not an ethical person?

I guess that means you are not a law abiding citizen, because the rules you follow are written...

I've clearly stated that my ethics are in conjunction with that of most Conservatives, that is what sets me apart and that is why I support the people I do. Sure, I might agree in other areas with the particular cantidates, but ethical issues are what I find more important.

Just because I am a Christian doesn't mean I don't have a mind of my own. I am entitled to my beliefs, just as you are. I've stated the way I believe, stop trying to tell me otherwise. You do not know me.

You make great efforts in attempt to smother me and distort my vision with my Christian beliefs. Why don't you speak for yourself for a change, you're not going to get anywhere trying to speak on my behalf, because you don't know a thing. You may think you have me figured out, but rest assured, you don't.

once again you turn my words around and come up with crap that has nothing to do with them. i never said that having ones ethics coincide with the bible is unethical. i said it is a different type of ethics just like my form of ethics is different. you are an ethical person, just as a liberal is an ethical person. it was you who equated ethics only with conservatism. i opened it up and said that ethics are present in everyone: liberal, conservative, communist, nazi. it's all a matter of perspective as mona said. and i also never attacked you. you turn words around in order to victimize yourself.

oh and melonie, i do know you very well ;)

Melonie Tomb Raider

09-11-06, 07:25

oh and melonie, i do know you very well ;)

Ha! That one made me laugh... :vlol: You're so delusional.

@Draco. No need to defend what you said, I was just goofing off. :p

GodOfLight

09-11-06, 07:44

Ha! That one made me laugh... :vlol: You're so delusional.

is it that i'm delusional or that youre confused about what i said? :D it may all suprise you one of these days kid :wve:

Paul H

09-11-06, 10:36

According to reports, the Democrats have now won Virginia, giving them a majority in the Senate.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1962752.ece

This is a step in the right direction but only a very small one. Only if this marks the beginning of a growing and unstoppable momentum that will result in overwhelming public demand for those responsible for the illegal war (including Blair) to be brought to justice for their crimes, and for a real investigation into what really happened on September 11, will it be a cause for celebration.

Don’t expect the Democrats to put right all the wrongs of the Bush years - even if they also win the presidency in 2008 - unless they are forced by the sheer weight of massive public opinion to do so. The Democrats also have blood on their hands from the illegal war in Kosovo in 1999. If they are to bring Bush to justice for his crimes, will they do the same to Clinton for his?

Jade Rae

09-11-06, 11:56

Why do you say the wars were illegal???

Paul H

09-11-06, 14:05

Why do you say the wars were illegal??? Because they were both in violation of international law due to the absence of UN approval. Neither of the two wars were backed by UN resolutions. In the case of the Iraq war, even Richard Perle has publicly accepted that it was illegal in spite of ridiculous attempts by others to claim that resolution 1441 made it legal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

And in the case of the Kosovo war, there was not even anything like 1441 for the war criminals to hide behind. The illegality of that war is beyond any possible dispute.

Cochrane

09-11-06, 15:47

This is a step in the right direction but only a very small one. Only if this marks the beginning of a growing and unstoppable momentum that will result in overwhelming public demand for those responsible for the illegal war (including Blair) to be brought to justice for their crimes, and for a real investigation into what really happened on September 11, will it be a cause for celebration.
First of all: No democrat elected wherever will be able to bring Blair to justice. That is a purely british issue. Second: What do you think really happened September 11? Because I see no reason to doubt the official story (and I've seen many videos posted on Youtube that claim to have all the proof that the official story is wrong).

Rivendell

09-11-06, 15:57

September 11? Because I see no reason to doubt the official story (and I've seen many videos posted on Youtube that claim to have all the proof that the official story is wrong).

:yik: Seriously? You've seen the likes of Loose Change, and you think the 'official' story has no flaws that need investigating?

Mona Sax

09-11-06, 16:07

I think what happened is pretty clear. It's the question why it happened (and why it could happen in the first place) that has to be investigated.

On a side note: Rumsfeld's history! :jmp:

Ward Dragon

09-11-06, 17:23

On a side note: Rumsfeld's history! :jmp:

Don't cheer until we know for sure that the new guy is better...

:yik: Seriously? You've seen the likes of Loose Change, and you think the 'official' story has no flaws that need investigating?

I found a very convincing rebuttal to that video. The webpage contains some curse words, though, so I need to check the TOU to see if I can post a link with a disclaimer or something.

Jade Rae

09-11-06, 17:44

What would one think are 'flaws' in the official story?

EDIT: Paul H. Thanks for your answer, I'm still not sure I completely get it though...was it illegal when the trade centers were dive bombed?? I'm sure they didn't get UN approval for that.

Paul H

09-11-06, 17:58

First of all: No democrat elected wherever will be able to bring Blair to justice. That is a purely british issue. Second: What do you think really happened September 11? Because I see no reason to doubt the official story (and I've seen many videos posted on Youtube that claim to have all the proof that the official story is wrong).
First: Of course the Democrats aren't going to bring Blair to justice, directly. But when it starts to happen in the US, Britain won't be far behind. That's the way it usually is.

Second: What really happened on September 11 was that not two but three buildings collapsed. Two of them were hit by planes, but the other one (WTC7) was not, and yet it plummeted to the ground just as the other two did. There is no way that could have happened simply as a result of the twin towers being hit by planes. That buiding was, to use the jargon used by demolition industry people (and the building’s owner, Larry Silverstein) "pulled". In other words, it was brought down by a controlled demolition, which means that explosives were planted throughout the building ready to be detonated.

Who says so? A guy called Danny Jowenko who is one of the world’s leading experts on the controlled demolition of buildings. He was shown a video of WTC7 collapsing without knowing it was WTC7 and without knowing it had anything to do with 9/11. He didn’t even know that a third building had collapsed on 9/11. After watching the video, Jowenko was asked how he believed the building had been brought down. He replied: "This is controlled demolition." Asked again if he could be sure of that, Jowenko added: "Absolutely. It's been imploded. This was a hired job performed by a team of experts."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI

So who planted the explosives? There is no way bin Laden’s people could have quietly sneaked past the building’s security to do it.

tlr online

09-11-06, 21:14

BBC is also reporting the democrats have secured both the Senate and House of Representatives.

Democrats seal US Senate victory

Republican George Allen has admitted defeat in the Virginia race for the US Senate, sealing Democratic mid-term victories in both houses of Congress. He said he did not want to cause "more rancour" by seeking a recount which he did not think would alter the outcome.

The victory means Democrats control the Senate. They also secured the House of Representatives in Tuesday's poll. Mr Bush has pledged to work with his rivals, and said he was open to new ideas and suggestions.

But the BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says the loss of both houses of Congress will make President George W Bush's last two years in office extremely difficult. The Senate victory will also give the Democrats key posts on powerful congressional committees. They will also have more control over federal spending.

www.bbc.co.uk

Draco

10-11-06, 04:25

i just hope they don't raise taxes...again.

dbot

10-11-06, 05:05

Edit: I just checked and I don't think it breaks the TOU, so here it is: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

pretty off topic, but maddox is hilarious. read his one called "why change your oil when your girlfriend can do it?"

sorry...just had to say.

Cochrane

10-11-06, 05:05

:yik: Seriously? You've seen the likes of Loose Change, and you think the 'official' story has no flaws that need investigating?
Yes. I think the likes of "Loose Change" have flaws that need investigating, though.

JANKERSON

10-11-06, 12:31

i just hope they don't raise taxes...again.

That's the first thing on their agenda to fund all those Social programs... :hea: